Posted
by
timothyon Thursday August 26, 2010 @07:55PM
from the after-the-fact dept.

WebMink writes "Despite the fervour of some, the dark secret of every GNU/Linux distribution is that, until August 18 this year, it depended on software that was under a non-Free license — incompatible with the Open Source Definition and non-Free according to Debian and the FSF. A long tale of tenacity and software archeology has finally led to that software appearing under the 3-clause BSD license — ironically, at the behest of an Oracle VP. The result is that glibc, portmap and NFS are no longer tainted."

Seriously, based on the article Oracle probably could have chosen to go all copyright infringement lawsuit-happy on every Linux vendor known to man. But instead they relicensed the old code under a free license...*checks the temperature in Hell*

Seriously, based on the article Oracle probably could have chosen to go all copyright infringement lawsuit-happy on every Linux vendor known to man. But instead they relicensed the old code under a free license...*checks the temperature in Hell*

Oracle not being evil? Yeah, I tried to check the temperature down there, too. Unfortunately, all of my equipment loses too much precision in the microkelvin range.

SCO had a couple of very real UNIX products out there in the '90s, especially back when Linux was still an unsupported toy. I was even unlucky enough (from an ease of use perspective they made Solaris look like Ubuntu) to have to look after a bunch of them in a previous job - though by the time I'd left I'd gotten them about 90% migrated to a combination of RHEL and WBL.

No they didn't. You're confusing SCO from Utah with Santa Cruz Operations. SCO is a rename of the old company Caldera after they bought the name and rights from the original SCO - now known as Tarantella.

PLEASE GET THIS CLEAR: The company that sued Linux and the company that made unixware ARE NOT THE SAME COMPANY. They are completely seperate corporations in completely different places started by completely different people and have NOTHING common.SCO actually did have two fairly decent products back in the Caldera years. Caldera Linux was perhaps the best desktop distro in it's day (though they were also the first distro to ship with a non-free DE by default [they used KDE back when QT was still non-free]), and DR-DOS was probably the best DOS replacement ever developed.

The things - Caldera basically died during the UnitedLinux fiasco and never really had another product, they bought the unix business from SCO along with the name, while the old SCO focussed on their security business and became Tarantella, but never did anything with it - except to make the source code of the very first unix kernel available as a free download for curiosity purposes (this ended up counting severely against them in the case they lost- they had effectively declared the unix they owned to be a valueless thing of purely historic interest- and now they want to sue others for supposedly stealing it - ironically there really wasn't any of that code in Linux at any time because it really WAS just of historic interest. What the hell would Linux want with code written in the 1970's for 8-bit CPU's ?)

RTFA. The code was used within the permissions granted, so there was no copyright infringement. The problem was that the license, while permissive for 1984 was not up to modern FSF standards and was not GPL compatible (falling foul of the "no other restrictions" clause).

There was no financial or legal reason for Oracle not to release the code and bad PR if the didn't. It is nice that they did release it of course, because, as I understand it, rewriting it would of been a nightmare.

The code was used within the permissions granted, so there was no copyright infringement

Actually, there was, just not in the way that you are thinking. The code contained conditions not present in the LGPL, and this meant that distributing LGPL'd code linked to it is a violation of the LGPL. This means that any downstream distribution of the LGPL'd code (glibc) was a violation of the copyright (owned by the FSF).

Somewhat amusingly, this now means that the FSF has standing to sue anyone who has ever distributed a version of the GNU platform.

There was no financial or legal reason for Oracle not to release the code and bad PR if the didn't

I understand being snide about "linux desktop" Lock-in, Pre-installation, Ignorance etc etc...but what terrible user experience are you referring to...I'm confused you state it as though I should understand, but I don't. I can name large problems with pulseaudio(fixed),compiz(fixed..shiny new version),3D support(only Nvidia to get in on the act but nouveau), wireless(fixed), i8xx intel(hopefully fixed), Flash 64 Bit+GPU accelerated(Gnash does both and YouTube...and its importance has been diminished), but w

The bottom line is the worst thing...the most terrible awful thing I have to experience as a Linux Desktop User is the delay between clicking on Firefox and it appearing.

That's because Firefox is hueg. It takes just as long to start up in Windows (if not longer).
By the problems/software you reference, I take it you're on Ubuntu. If you're using a recent version, it should include ureadahead, which should make frequently-accessed files load faster (through caching or something).
I had Firefox start up auto

Believe me, I love Linux. Been running it is my main OS for 7-8 years now. But Compiz and PulseAudio are not fixed. At all. (At least under Kubuntu)

My last upgrade still required me to purge PulseAudio before my audio worked, and I get regular notices that "composting was too slow and has been disabled". The last time that happened, I was sitting with my hands 6" from the keyboard and mouse, reading slashdot, with no other programs running. I hadn't touched the computer for at least a minute. And this is on a dual-core desktop, with a decent video card, and a couple GB of ram.

I've been holding off on an entire system wipe and reinstall, because I need to get around to getting a couple new hard drives anyway. I'm hoping that fixes at least the Compiz problem. But I'm still not impressed with Compiz. If I'd ever seen PulseAudio do anything but destroy all the sound on my computer, I might like it. The philosophy is fucking fantastic, and I've been drooling about it ever since it was announced. It's something that Linux desperately needs. To generically say that everything is fixed, however, is a sweeping overstatement. For you, perhaps. But based on my searches to fix the issues I have, a ton of people are still having a terrible time with those things

Seriously, that's aggravating as hell. I just kind of assumed that GNU would have released all of their flagship software under the L?GPL and had no idea that they were distributing non-Free software. They were the one distributor I figured I'd never have to audit the licenses from. Are there any other hidden gems? Is there some shareware in Emacs? Maybe a bit of Shared Source in binutils?

People have laughed at the BSDs for replacing a lot of common software with locally-developed, BSD-licensed equivalents. That's starting to seem like a much saner alternative.

FSF's non-blob criteria is incompatible with being able to boot modern PC's on modern CPU's. Good job, guys. Fedora, on the other hand, remains as free as possible a distro for modern PC's. I'll be interested to see how hurd deals with this problem.

If this was really a concern they'd work hard on advancing the PC architecture to the point that it didn't need such reliance on firmware uploaders. I've never seen FSF do anything like that. Perhaps I missed it, but it seems like it's just ego-inflating to

Seriously, that's aggravating as hell. I just kind of assumed that GNU would have released all of their flagship software under the L?GPL and had no idea that they were distributing non-Free software

Seriously. Same for the Debian folk. For years I had to compile netatalk by hand because the debian folk threw a shitstorm over compiling it against OpenSSL because of licensing problems, so it had no encrypted auth support.

People on debian-legal are famous for being the most righteous, die-hard, by-the-bo

The license simply states "You may expand upon the works of these two programs as long as you distribute your derivative works freely, full source included, upon completion of a stable build of the program."

Then have the two programs simply be a binary 1 and binary 0.

Just get about ten million geeks to sign the thing to make it a solid license, and then start contacting lawyers.

Collectively sue the absolute shit out of everybody. Force change in software licensing/E

I've got an idea! What we really need is some kind of license that's like BSD, but requires people distributing derived works to do so under the same license. I can't believe nobody's thought of this yet!

Any legal agreement that can't be simplified for the common person to understand is not one that should be enforced or signed by that person. I have read the GPL many times over the years (as well as US copyright law) and while I can grok most of the GPL, parts of it continue to elude me. Its textual representation reminds me of bad software writing, decidedly worse than average federal law standards. State law, on the other hand....

Then the preamble failed in it's job. The preamble is (supposedly) the non-lawyer-speak of the rest of the agreement, the rest of the agreement enforces the preamble in it's implied definition, while dealing with legal issues.

I have read the GPL many times over the years (as well as US copyright law) and while I can grok most of the GPL, parts of it continue to elude me. Its textual representation reminds me of bad software writing, decidedly worse than average federal law standards.

At the very least, it's better than the English translation of the Treaty of Armens [memory-alpha.org].

Sleepycat isn't NEARLY as comprehensive, but simplicity is usually well worth that loss.

When dealing with normal, reasonable people I agree because your audience is trying their best to understand the information you are trying to impart. When dealing with the law your audience is deliberately trying to misinterpret everything you have said to their advantage so you need everything specified absolutely precisely so that there is no possible way they can do that.

Good suggestion, but keep in mind that CC licenses are not designed to be used with software. As they say on their FAQ [creativecommons.org]:

Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?

We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software.

CC is a great set of licenses, but as they say, if you're dealing with software you're probably better off using one of the licenses designed with it in mind.

The usual reason for this is that most software licenses are designed to distinguish between source code and binary/object code. However, if you intend to put both in the public domain, I see no reason why you couldn't use cc0, hypothetically.

What do you mean by, "legally protect them to be in public domain?" When something is in the public domain, absolutely anyone can use it in any way they want. Including using it as part of a non-free, non-public domain product. They can do whatever they want with it, just as everyone else can.

Perhaps you're asking about copyfraud, where someone falsely claims to have exclusive rights to a work in the public domain? For example, publishing a copy of Shakespeare's plays and putting a notice on it that says, "No part of this may be reproduced without permission from the publisher." That's just lying. A license like GPL wouldn't prevent that either. Licenses only apply to people who are honest or who get caught. If someone intentionally lies about what rights they have, the only thing you can do is call them on it (and sue them if you're sufficiently motivated).

Or maybe you're just asking what the mechanism is? In most countries, all you need to do is stick a notice on it saying, "This work is in the public domain."

Is there a mechanism that will ensure that a dedication to the public domain remains effective even if the entity that put something in the public domain is acquired, and the acquiring entity tries to revoke the dedication?

In most countries, yes it's irrevocable. Once you voluntarily place something in the public domain, that's that. I believe there are a few countries (Germany?) where things are more ambiguous and the law doesn't recognize the concept of public domain in the same way it does elsewhere. The Creative Commons folks have been developing a "public domain equivalent" license which is supposed to be somehow more reliable in those countries.

You don't need to. That's the whole point. At the top of the code, when it was written, it says, PD, date, author. There's your starting point. That chunk is PD. What you do with it is up to you. You can make a chunk exactly like it and make it proprietary; that's fine. The original is still PD, though, and there's nothing you can do to change that. Nothing at all.

If code is floating around without any license and I include it in my proprietary software, on what grounds can you sue me?

It's PD. You can be sued (you can be sued for anything) but all you need to win is "Here's this thing, it's PD, by so and so, date whatever, and I used it as such. Thank you, I'll be leaving now, and by the way, I'll have court costs, too."

If there is nothing that says I have to attribute the copyright to the original author, then what stops me from absorbing the code into my code base

Nothing stops you in the first place. That's the idea, see, the code is FREE. So there's nothing to worry about. Absorb away. (Though it is traditional to eat pizza while you do so, no one will force you.)

If I start changing the code, then is the modified code still in the public domain?

It's whatever you say it is. Once you change it, it isn't the original code. So you're free (get that, FREE) to do anything you want. Call it proprietary, send it back to the author with a thank you note, charge huge amounts of money for it, etc. Anything you want. The only thing you can't do is take the original chunk out of the public domain. That's a done deal, and anyone can use that original chunk any way they want and there isn't squat you can do about that.

On the other hand, if you force a public license on the code with agreements to attribute and disclose its use, and contribute modifications back to the public then the code and its modifications stay public.

The original PD code stays public and available. But the author doesn't claim that changes you make are owned by him, or that he has a right to tell you what to do with them. He respects your freedom. The GPL does not. The GPL says there IS a cost for this, and it is that you will do as we say, or you are subject to these limitations. PD says, here it is, have a party, bye.

And that, my friend, is why all the FREE software I write is PD. Not GPL.

I seem to recall that Woody Guthrie wrote on at least one of his songbooks, in reference to 'This Land is Your Land', "This song is copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do.". Ludlow Music enforces copywrite on this song even today. So sometimes things that see

Guthrie presumably sold that right; that's pretty typical for the publishing industry. They don't produce anything, they're just middlemen, and so rights are their handle on the material.

You'll notice that Woody did *not* say that the song was public domain; he said it was copyrighted. That's like the GPL: You see it, you should make sure you understand the terms, because whatever else they may be, they are not grants of freedom. More of a license to employ a lawyer.

I own a literary agency, and we deal in precisely those kinds of contracts. We try - very hard - to protect the author's rights, one as distinct from the next, so that, for instance, having sold a book to print, the author retains the rights to make a movie, an e-book, etc. Publishers, on the other hand, come at it the other way. The typical contract tries to vacuum up every right known, and any that might not be specified.

This is one of the reasons that I *really* welcome e-books; the main reason publishers were able to maintain their position is because it was expensive, very, to print a book. An e-book... no longer true. A good literary agency can provide the editing an author needs, or the author and a few beta readers can get it handled my themselves, and that's a *much* better model for both authors and readers.

The author removes a middle entity, and that raises compensation; that encourages the author; that's good for everyone. Borrowing is reduced, and pass-along is as well. This tends to mean that you'll actually get your income on a per-reader basis. Shops are never "out" of your book; books never have to be out of print. A book can become a hit years after it is released. Advances are not required and earnings are no longer encumbered. Release times are vastly reduced. Whole libraries can be carried in your palm. You can read anywhere. It's not perfect, but man, is it ever better.

Bit of a digression there, sorry.:) The subject is very much on my mind right now.

You need the same thing as you need with any software: A copy of the original, with the terms, in this case a statement that the code is PD. The Internet, bless its digital little heart, probably remembers when it appeared, too. If terms are obeyed, no problem will arise. Its the liars and the cheats you have to watch out for, and that's true no matter what mode of release you choose from commercial to PD.

As for Shakespeare's plays -- even though they were used only as an example here -- be careful. Old texts often undergo serious editing before being published, and the edited version is quite definitely not in public domain. That's the reason why journal article preprints are usually freely distributed by the authors, while the final, edited and published version would be illegal to distribute. Same goes for translations: even though a translation is a work derived from another work in the public domain, it

How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain? Really, serious question.

It is a very good question, and the answer is to use the GPL.

Um, WTF? GPL is absolutely not similar to public domain; the gpl-violations people repeatedly make this very clear.

A better answer is, "that's not very clear, could you give an example of what you mean?". About the only thing I think it can sanely mean, is how to prevent other people from claiming it as their work (ie, plagiarism) and suing people (kinda like SCO suing people over Novell's copyrighted code). Maybe something like CC-zero is the answer (you keep a copyright, so you can sue them for... I think it was "slander of title" that Novell used), maybe just make sure your copy with the non-copyright notice gets well indexed by the search engines so any potential victims can find it when they need to defend themselves, maybe plagiarism can be a suable offence separately from copyright violation (I don't think that's the case here in the US, but I hear it might be in much of Europe).

cc0 doesn't let you keep a copyright in countries in which the copyright can be dissolved, such as the US. Slander of title may apply even if the code has become PD, as long as the statement is false and harmful. In the case of Novell, it was false (the code was GPL, PD, or (c) Novell) and harmful (SCO was suing Novell's customers, or threatening to sue them). IANAL, this isn't legal advice, etc.

Um, WTF? GPL is absolutely not similar to public domain; the gpl-violations people repeatedly make this very clear.

A better answer is, "that's not very clear, could you give an example of what you mean?". About the only thing I think it can sanely mean, is how to prevent other people from claiming it as their work (ie, plagiarism) and suing people (kinda like SCO suing people over Novell's copyrighted code). Maybe something like CC-zero is the answer (you keep a copyright, so you can sue them for... I thin

You keep saying "public domain", but you are using it to define nearly the opposite concept.

I like to think of it this way. Least free to most free: GPL, BSD/MIT, Public Domain. GPL is very restrictive as to what the licensee can or cannot do with the work. BSD/MIT both allow nearly any use/modification/extension, but requires the licensee to retain copyright notices. Public Domain requires neither; anyone can use and abuse it without retaining copyright notices.

So is GPL more or less free than a commercial license? Usually less free, but it depends on what you want. The GPL is more restrictive in that source code must be provided, no charge, to anyone who gets a binary copy. Typical mega-corporation commercial licenses prevent modification or extension, and many times even use and reverse-engineering, but I'd say that smaller companies tend to be less restrictive in their licenses than the GPL (barring, of course, redistribution of the original source code).

Usually less free than a commercial license? I'm curious about your definition of less.

You can copy GPL software to any and all machines you want without restrictions. (commercial software doesn't usually let you do that)You can give or sell GPL software to anyone, as long as you provide them the source code. (commercial software doesn't usually allow that)You can modify it and use it anywhere (commercial software doesn't usually allow that)You can incorporate it into your own code, provided that you license your code as GPL (commercial software doesn't usually allow that)

You can pay for the rights to do all of these things with commercial software, subject to the copyright holders predilection for selling those rights.

The only thing you cannot do is incorporate GPL software into your own NON-GPL code without paying the copyright holder for those additional rights, subject to their willingness to license those rights, but you can't do that with commercial software either.

As I see it you are never more restricted by the GPL than a commercial license. There exist commercial licenses that allow unlimited use and distribution and modification and distribution of the modified code, but they are extremely rare big $$$$ licenses - Sun's license for Unix and Microsofts license for SQL Server are good examples.

If you are a developer and want to sell binary only copies of a modified version of something, then you may be better off starting from something that isn't GPL licensed. But that doesn't make it more free, just better suited to your particular purposes, and describing it as more free is inaccurate. It is simply more convenient to license the particular rights you are interested in. A software USER always has more freedom under the GPL than a commercial license because the only right constrained by the GPL is one that does not impact them, and commercial software nearly always constrains usage rights in some way. Users can even legally use GPL'd software without agreeing to the license!

In theory, GPL is less free than PD. In practice though - standing matters in court. It's hard to get a court to hear a case over someone fraudulently claiming to own a Public Domain work. If they actually filed suit against you, you would have clear standing, since they were threatening to damage you by taking your money if they won the suit. But, what if they just sent you a cease and desist, falsely claiming to own the work, but not actually announcing they plan to file charges if you publish or distribu

tend to be less restrictive in their licenses than the GPL (barring, of course, redistribution of the original source code).

I like how you use a whole paragraph explaining why commercial licenses are more free than the GPL and then gloss over the friggin huge reason for the GPL in the first place parenthetically as if it was an afterthought. The freedom of modification and redistribution is huge, and central to the GPL.

But maybe you're right, that software license I got from Microsoft for Windows was way mo

You keep saying "public domain", but you are using it to define nearly the opposite concept.

Did you even read my post? That was my whole point, that you can't create a license to mandate that something stay in the public domain after someone else takes a hold of it because inherent in the definition of public domain is the ability for anyone to do whatever they want with it, including the ability to make their version not public domain. I was suggesting to the OP that if what he meant by "public domain" (notice the ironic quotes there and in my original post) was that the work would stay available for everyone even after someone else takes it and releases it as their own, then "public domain" is not the proper release strategy for him, and that he's probably looking for something like the GPL.

"How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain? Really, serious question."

It is a very good question, and the answer is to use the GPL. But more to the point, if you put something into the public domain, then you by definition should be expecting that other people will take your work and close it up inside their own products/works. If you don't want that, then you don't want the public domain.

If they mean that mere duplication stays in the public domain, then the PD satisfies that already so there is no question apart from what is called "copyfraud" elsewhere in thread. I am not sure whether PD blocks copyfraud (claiming authorship of material verbatim); I suspect it depends on whether the country has a concept of moral rights apart from intellectual property rights.

So, the alternative is that if by "stays in the public domain," they mean that derived works stay in the domain declared for the original work. OK, now strictly speaking we've reached a contradiction since the public domain does not allow this. However, we may consider a quasi-public domain in which this property holds. It is obvious that there is no way whatsoever to do this for an open release, without something GPL-like (feel free to prove me wrong). Specifics may differ, but that part of GPL which is called "viral" by its detractors and called "spider plant-like" by rms exactly identifies what is necessary for derived works to stay in the original domain.

So, the alternative is that if by "stays in the public domain," they mean that derived works stay in the domain declared for the original work. OK, now strictly speaking we've reached a contradiction since the public domain does not allow this. However, we may consider a quasi-public domain in which this property holds. It is obvious that there is no way whatsoever to do this for an open release, without something GPL-like

Wow, I think I just bumped into the first person who actually read what I wrote. I don

Is this just a troll or are there people who seriously get this upset over a software license?
If so can I get a link to a description of the controversy please?

Serious question.

That's probably a troll but yes there are people who seriously get this upset over a software license. Well, they don't precisely get upset over the license itself. They get upset that anyone else would use a license that they would not use. The fact that your choice to use whatever license you like for what you create does not prevent them from using any license they like for what they create won't give them a moment's pause.

It's like the people who will get upset that you might drink alcohol, because they don't drink. Prohibition never could have gotten off the ground without folks like them. Or the people who think it's a good idea to arrest you if you smoke marijuana, because they wouldn't smoke marijuana. Or the people who think you should go to hell, or at least that they certainly shouldn't associate with you and treat you with respect, because their religion is not your religion. Or the people who think that all adults should have porn banned/censored for them because they themselves do not wish to see pornography. Or the people who think that anything which offends them is inherently evil and must be stopped at all costs, rather than viewing that as the way they have chosen to react to something that is otherwise harmless.

I like the term Bill Hicks used, which was "fevered egos". Just be glad that when people like this make new laws, they have largely overlooked the realm of software development.

The GPL has more restrictions than the old Sun RPC license. Glibc had already been free software, the only difference is that now satisfies some misguided notions some people have, that is all.We really need to get away with this obsessive legality, and just start giving code away. Someone should be able to say "here, take my code and use it" without someone lecturing them on what they're doing wrong while the free software song is sung out of key in the background. Why don't people want to write or eve

All that shows is someone not understanding their chosen license and getting angry that they didn't get credit for their work.

Restrictions in the name of freedom is not freedom. Perhaps what you mean is that BSD doesn't work quite so well in a world where people hunger for fame and recognition. I'd bet Data would be BSD if Soong lived long enough to perfect things.

/** Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for* unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape* media and as a part of the software program in whole or part. Users* may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized* to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or* program developed by the user.** SUN RPC IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND INCLUDING THE* WARRANTIES OF DESIGN, MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR* PURPOSE, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE.** Sun RPC is provided with no support and without any obligation on the* part of Sun Microsystems, Inc. to assist in its use, correction,* modification or enhancement.** SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE* INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS OR ANY PATENTS BY SUN RPC* OR ANY PART THEREOF.** In no event will Sun Microsystems, Inc. be liable for any lost revenue* or profits or other special, indirect and consequential damages, even if* Sun has been advised of the possibility of such damages.** Sun Microsystems, Inc.* 2550 Garcia Avenue* Mountain View, California 94043*/

The new one is:

/** Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle America, Inc.** Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are* met:** * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.* * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above* copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following* disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials* provided with the distribution.* * Neither the name of the "Oracle America, Inc." nor the names of its* contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived* from this software without specific prior written permission.** THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS* LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS* FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE* COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,* INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL* DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE* GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS* INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,* WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING* NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE* OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.*/

Interesting. But how is this "more free"? It's not quite a BSD license if they require the source and binaries contain that notice. Further, what I see is this re-branding of everything from Sun to Oracle all over the place. The latest updates for VirtualBox, OpenOffice and Java did little to patch or improve but most significantly changes everything to containing Oracle branding. I see this as no different.

Calling this more free while also including requirements such as the ones illustrated above it s bit of a mixed message.

The submitter seems to think it's "ironic" that the license was changed at the behest of an Oracle VP. But looking at the code above, it seems the non-free portion in question was owned by Sun Microsystems. Sun Microsystems is now Oracle America. When you see the phrase "Oracle America" (as opposed to just plain Oracle), you know they're talking about the former Sun Microsystems.

So this is not "ironic" at all. Oracle America had the power to adjust the license, and Oracle America chose to do so. It makes on

Did you even read the article? They began work on the issue while Sun was still Sun, but it was interrupted by the acquisition by Oracle.

"But then there was some sort of foul-up after it was all agreed and Red Hat (who were making the change) never received documentation of the decision that was sufficient to give them confidence it was all over. They tried contacting people at Sun, but by then acquisition of Sun by Oracle was in full swing and no-one was allowed to make any changes affecting copyrights any

Did you even read the article? They began work on the issue while Sun was still Sun, but it was interrupted by the acquisition by Oracle.

"But then there was some sort of foul-up after it was all agreed and Red Hat (who were making the change) never received documentation of the decision that was sufficient to give them confidence it was all over. They tried contacting people at Sun, but by then acquisition of Sun by Oracle was in full swing and no-one was allowed to make any changes affecting copyrights any more."

Not true. In this case, it'd be a work for hire, and the copyright would rest with the company that paid the authors, not the authors itself. (As a side note, you can also assign the copyrights to another party, the FSF requires people working on stuff like gcc and other GNU software to assign their copyrights to the FSF). Thus, the entity, in this case Sun/Oracle could change the license at will.

The tricky part was determining if the work was derived from something else, under a restrictive copyright. The copyright still belongs to Sun but they could be bound by contractual terms to other parties because of the way the works originated. Incidentally, this is the reason NVidia always gives for not open sourcing their 3D drivers for Linux.

Not true. In this case, it'd be a work for hire, and the copyright would rest with the company that paid the authors, not the authors itself.

Not necessarily. It's only a "work [made] for hire" if the coders were employed by the company (not independent contractors), or the work falls into a narrowly defined category of things that *can* be explicitly made works for hire.

The official FSF position was that they could take the code and release it under the LGPL. They thought that the license was structured in such a way that it basically lost its force once the covered software was built into another piece of software. I'm not sure if they have ever stated that analysis publicly.

Sometimes, I wish they would take this pragmatic approach towards the 4-clause BSD license.

Correct. It wasn't enough that we were GPL (v2), but we had to get copyright assignments to the FSF from an organization that didn't exist and people who were unwilling to do that.

My only personal contact with Stallman was a phone call just a bit after I took over from Chuck and he promised to "go to war against me" (his words) if I didn't get all the copyright assignments. I couldn't and he did.

In an interesting twist, my successor has managed to get the code base to GPL v3. Sigh.